1. Field of the Invention
The present invention is directed to a sanitizer for sanitizing various fixtures and appliances, such as faucets, handles and other items touched by humans and more specifically, to a chemical-free sanitizer, more specifically to an ozone-free sanitizer, and yet more specifically to an electronic sanitizer producing ions to sanitize surfaces.
2. Description of the Prior Art
It is well known that many infectious diseases and pathogens are communicated through touch or contact. Therefore, commonly touched items in public areas and facilities such as doorknobs, handles, fixtures, and other surfaces may spread infectious diseases and pathogens. People are particularly concerned with touching various surfaces in public restrooms, even communal restrooms at a work place or otherwise due to actual or perceived sanitary conditions of those restrooms and the users of the restrooms. In addition, many kitchens, both commercial and at-home, during food preparation may come in contact with various infectious diseases and pathogens, whether attributable to people, the food preparation or other sources. Many infectious diseases and pathogens may be transferred by various plumbing fixtures such as faucet handles and appliances, such as handles and controls, during normal use of a kitchen. As such, while contact with door handles, knobs and other plumbing fixtures related to the restroom and kitchen at many times is desirable to avoid for the above reasons, such contact is generally unavoidable and the transfer of infectious diseases from those surfaces to a person or from a person to those surfaces is also unavoidable. As such, many surfaces may be contaminated with pathogens and infectious diseases from people or other sources. Therefore, most people generally find it desirable to avoid or minimize contact with such surfaces when possible.
People are particularly concerned with the cleanliness of surfaces after washing their hands or before eating of food. However, touching many of the surfaces in a kitchen or a restroom after washing the hands or while preparing food at home, in work place kitchens, and in commercial kitchens is unavoidable. For example, in most kitchens, whether at home, at work, or in a commercial setting, such as a restaurant, the person must touch the handle of the faucet to turn on or off the water. As the person turns on the water, they may contaminate the faucet handle with a pathogen and after washing their hands, when turning off the water, they could potentially contact a surface that they just contaminated or was previously contaminated. As such, it is very easy to recontaminate a person's hands, even after being properly washed. In a kitchen, other than door and fixture handles, such as faucets, a refrigerator door handle, and kitchen knobs, the surface of a microwave, and the touch surfaces of many other appliances, including switches, knobs and other controls and even further, lighting switches, may all be contaminated with various pathogens and infectious diseases.
Some people use extra paper towels to cover and touch handles of a door or faucet handles; however, generally this is wasteful and adds additional expense for a facility, including increased paper cost as well as increased labor cost for replacing the paper products more frequently. In addition, in the home environment, people rarely take these steps that they would in a public area, even though the surface may be just as contaminated, particularly during certain food preparation tasks.
A number of methods have been proposed or are commonly followed, all of which have limited success or significant drawbacks in sanitizing and maintaining the cleanliness of various surfaces, including faucet handles. The first method is generally a more frequent cleaning of such surfaces; however, this increases labor costs and generally people are distrustful in public settings that the surfaces have been properly cleaned with enough frequency. Even in home settings, people may not realize just how contaminated their hands or a particular surface is at any given time. In addition, even if the fixture or surface was cleaned properly and no pathogens exist on the surface after cleaning, the very first contact by a person may place an undesirable infectious agent or pathogen on such surface or fixture and any subsequent users, or even the same user may later come in contact with such infectious agents or pathogens. For example, a person preparing chicken may encounter salmonella bacteria. The salmonella bacteria may be on their hands such that when they turn on the faucet, they contaminate the handle of the faucet before cleaning their hands. After turning on the faucet, they wash their hands, but when turning off the faucet, they recontaminate their hands by touching the surface of the handle to the faucet. Even a soap dispenser or soap bottle may be the contaminated item.
A number of other sanitizing methods have been proposed, all having limited success or significant drawbacks in sanitizing various surfaces. Most sanitizers have been directed to door handles and restroom fixtures other than sink faucets and soap dispensers. Today, no device exists that sanitizes on an automatic basis the handles of a faucet or likewise, a soap dispenser. One prior method of addressing sanitization of surfaces and fixtures is generally a more frequent cleaning of such surfaces; however, this increases labor costs and generally people are distrustful, rightfully so that the surfaces have been properly cleaned with enough frequency. As stated above, a surface may be contaminated with one touch by a person having the pathogen or infectious disease on their hands and, as such, may self-contaminate themselves. Therefore, even if the best and most thorough cleaning process is completed with a substantial regular frequency, the surfaces may have infectious agents or pathogens from the very first contact of a person and any subsequent person or the even the same user may be contaminated with such infectious agents or pathogens after touching the surface or fixture. Therefore, more frequent cleanings do not generally solve the problem of contaminated surfaces and fixtures.
Some facilities provide various cleaning wipes, liquids, or sponges that may be used for cleaning the surface by a user such as ready-wipes or alcohol cleaners that are one time use. The big disadvantage to these wipes, liquids or sponges is that they require frequent replacement thereby increasing the cost for the facility, both in material costs and labor costs. Many times, anti-bacterial sprays, liquids or wipes are empty creating an undesirable situation for the person using a facility.
To address the above problems, some manufacturers have introduced various electronic chemical sanitizers that at regular intervals with little to no interaction with the user or upon activation of a sensor, spray liquid on the desired surface. In addition to the increased maintenance cost as well as the product cost of replacing batteries and chemicals or wet materials in these chemical sanitizers, most people find it undesirable to touch a moist or damp surface such as a moist or damp faucet handle or door handle even if the moisture or liquid is a sanitizing chemical. Furthermore, in a kitchen setting, many of these sanitizers or cleaners are undesirable near food preparation areas, particularly when they have automatic releases which may occur when food is in close proximity. As such, traditionally these sanitizers using chemicals or the like have occurred only in restroom facilities and have been used even then in limited circumstances, typically without any plumbing fixtures. In addition, many people do not like the smell or have various chemical allergies to the chemicals being used to sanitize the surface such as a door handle or other fixture. More specifically, such as in an office setting, if one worker has a chemical allergy to the cleaning device that is being used, which on a timed or activated interval sprays a fixture such as a door handle, it may prevent that user from using the facility or even in some circumstances prevents use of the device in that facility.
To address some of the above problems with chemical sanitizers, some people have proposed using ultraviolet sanitizers that when positioned or placed over a non-porous surface effectively sterilizes and sanitizes the surface. While such devices prevent the spread of pathogens passed on by contact or direct exposure by exposing the pathogens to a killing ultraviolet light, these devices generally are power intensive and require frequent battery changes or recharging, unless they are hardwired into a facility's electrical system, which is expensive. Also, these ultraviolet light sanitizers if not properly positioned or configured may have adverse health effects and to date, none have been capable of sanitizing fixtures such as faucet handles, soap dispensers and related surfaces without potentially exposing the user to ultraviolet light. Repeated, frequent exposure to ultraviolet light from these devices is typically undesirable and may have adverse health effects. Therefore, to sanitize faucets, soap dispensers and the like, which do not typically have readily available power supplies, even where there is use of a controlled or preprogrammed timer or even motion sensor to limit battery drain, the use life is relatively limited requiring regular maintenance to replace or recharge batteries. Many people are also concerned with placing their hands on a door handle, faucet handle, soap dispenser or other fixture or appliance where it may be bathed in ultraviolet light. The positioning of many of these ultraviolet devices are typically above a door handle or counter top, which places it high enough such that children and smaller people may inadvertently look directly at the ultraviolet lamp, is undesirable and could cause in certain circumstances especially after repeated exposure, vision issues. Therefore, the implementation of these devices as sanitizers for various fixtures that cannot fit in an enclosure has been limited due to their serious drawbacks.
To address the shortcomings with various chemical and ultraviolet light sanitizers, some manufacturers have introduced ozone sanitizers, which is known to be a potent sanitizer for killing various pathogens as it is a highly reactive oxidizer. Ozone works well at killing various pathogens without leaving any chemical residue on the treated surface and therefore, has been highly desirable for use in food processing plants, but otherwise has had limited practical applications. A sanitizing processing system using ozone is generally of limited use because the system must control the output of ozone in a sealed environment due to various potential health issues related to exposure to ozone. Therefore, even though ozone was used as a sanitizer more widely before its health effects were known, it is now limited to large industrial settings and has not been successfully implemented currently in households or small commercial applications. More specifically, the application of ozone sanitizing systems has been extremely limited by the more recent understanding that ozone may cause various health issues, including according to the EPA, respiratory issues such as lung function, decrements, inflammation and permeability, susceptibility to infection, cardiac issues and increasing respiratory symptoms including increased medication use, asthma attacks and more. Exemplary respiratory systems from ozone exposure can include coughing, throat irritation, pain, burning, or discomfort in the chest when taking a deep breath, chest tightness, wheezing or shortness of breath. For some people, more acute or symptomatic responses may occur. As the concentration at which ozone effects are first observed depends mainly on the sensitivity of the individual, for some people even parts per billion exposure may cause noticeable issues. Therefore, other than in commercial environments where the ozone application must be specifically controlled, these systems are not desirable for a broader implementation in homes, work places and other facilities, where the ozone is not easily contained, such as any type of ozone sanitizer that would function as a fixture or a surface sanitizer. Therefore, there is a need for an effective sanitizer that does not include the identified limitations.
Existing sanitizers or ozone devices require a method of propelling the ions or ozone away from the device. As such, many of these devices use fans, compressed air, or other mechanisms for dispersing the ions. One problem with such systems is that in applications where an external power source is not readily available, batteries for fans, and other means of propulsion such as CO2 canisters must be replaced on a fairly regular basis. In mechanisms using a fan powered by battery, the fans substantially limits the life of the battery to the point where it needs to be replaced weekly or even bi-weekly in certain environments. Other systems using compressed air or CO2 require replacement or recharging of the cartridges or tanks on a regular basis. In addition, any sanitizer requiring a mechanism for propelling the ions outward such as the battery-powered fans or compressed air stop efficiently functioning, without the mechanism for propulsion.
Bipolar ionizers use a high voltage to create an electric field across two discharge points. One point creates positive ions and the other point creates negative ions. It is well known that as the number of points increases, the amount of ions that may be generated due to the nature of electrical fields and increase in surface area from using multiple points, is reduced. More specifically, the use of a single point requires that all of the electrical fields will pass through that point. As such, the production of ions is maximized by use of a single point. Traditionally, multiple points as ion sources were discouraged to maximize ion production. In addition, Bipolar ionizers use a high voltage to create an electric field across two discharge points. One point creates positive ions and the other point creates negative ions. (Note, multiple discharge points for positive and multiple discharge points for negative are acceptable). The most common methods of creating the required voltage are either a flyback transformer or a voltage multiplier circuit or a combination of the two, as illustrated in FIG. 34. These circuits are well known. Because the high voltage output is direct current (DC), two discharge points are required—one for positive and the other for negative. Most implementations of a flyback transformer use feedback from a secondary winding on the transformer to create a resonator that switches the primary side of the transformer on and off. While this circuit is simple and cost effective, it often takes long periods of time for the circuit to stabilize and reach its full output, as illustrated in the graph in FIG. 33, which shows just a small portion of the output at the peak, thereby limiting generation of ions.
In addition, certain pathogens are becoming resistant to various chemicals used in chemical sanitizers. For example, in the medical field, one of the biggest problems facing hospitals and clinics is pathogens that are resistant to various chemicals.
A number of ion generators also require thermal plasma to function. Thermals plasma ion generators produce ions, but are extremely hot, limiting their effective use in close proximity to humans, such as use in a hand sanitizer. As with any ions created by an ion generator, many of the ions are unstable and quickly convert back, limiting the effective range of the ions that are useful in sanitizing surfaces, including hands of various pathogens, yet it is desirable to space hands well away from any thermal plasma field. Therefore, thermal plasma devices have serious design constraints when used to sanitize surfaces, such as door handles and other fixtures that are in regular human contact, and any sanitizing of human body surfaces, such as hands in thermal plasma is not advisable and should be avoided. In addition, as stated above, many ion generators operate in a similar manner to ozone generators. Therefore, thermal plasma is generally undesirable because it may cause corona discharge, which is related to ozone production.
Another drawback to ion generators that use a thermal plasma is the high power consumption required to generate the thermal plasma. In general, any thermal plasma ion generator must be used connected to the power grid. Battery life of a thermal ion generator would be so short or require such large capacity batteries, therefore requiring large volumes of space, any use of the ion generator remote from the power grid would be impractical, and the maintenance requirements would be extremely high in relation to replacing or recharging the batteries. Therefore, ion generators that use thermal plasma are generally not useful to attach to doors, walls or other locations where it is difficult to connect them to the power grid. In addition, even if a thermal plasma ion generator may be placed in a position to connect to the power grid, the installation cost is typically high, and the high power consumption is expensive.
Most ion generators only generate a single type of ion, typically only negative ions. Any ion device only generating a single type of ion or more specifically, a single type of charge for the ions are generally not as effective as ion generators producing both positive and negative ions in killing pathogens to sanitize surfaces. Therefore, a need exists for an ion generator that is bipolar, not just monopolar, and more specifically, an ion generator that produces sufficient quantities of positive and negative ions.
Some sanitizers require expensive sacrificial anodes or cathodes. Sacrificial anodes or cathodes must be replaced, and in addition, sacrificial anodes or cathodes put pieces of the anode or cathode in the environment, typically as ions in a fluid, which may subject the ion generator to numerous additional regulations. In addition, if either the cathodes, anode or fluid is depleted, the sanitizer ceases to function as desired.